Pages

Sunday, April 25, 2010

I begin this week's issue with one of my favorite quotes from the movie, "Ratatouille":

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize - only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more.

Anton Ego

Those of you who have seen the movie will remember the hunchback egotistical critic (appropriately named "Anton Ego") with near impossible expectations that could make or break one's cooking career. While many may have seen Ego's role as the villain in this movie, there is most certainly more to Ego that meets the eye.

The quote above clearly underlines the ease with which a critic can pass upon a judgement with repercussions that extend well beyond one's imaginations. While ego is a professional critic, his observation can also be applied to everyone and anyone who has ever criticized something. Just to show how important this concept is, I repeat here the first point that I am trying to get across:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.

We criticize just about anything and we criticize often. Ego highlights it in the second part of his quote as well, but in a more positive tone:

But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends.

Every time we meet with something new, the sceptic inside us cannot wait to jump out and dismiss its prospects. That urge is developed from our desire to succeed, which given the wrong circumstances, transforms into jealousy. Jealousy is a strong word to use here, but anybody who aspires to be somebody should at least have a strong sense of ambition. It is this sense of ambition that creates the need to be better than others. So, when a novel idea appears, one can't help but ask, "Why didn't I think of that?".

Of course, jealousy is not the only reason we criticize something. As Ego rightly points out, we thrive on negative criticism, and it is fun to write and read. It could just be as simple as that.

The second point that I am trying to make, is a much more important, yet subtle one. Earlier, I mentioned that Ego has more than what meets the eye. Here is why. Personally, I find Ego's strength of character exemplary. One could easily imagine Ego to retaliate after being humiliated by a rat who served him a peasant dish but he didn't. In fact, Ego wasn't even angry. While it is easy to admit that we are wrong to ourselves, especially in private, how often do we admit to the world that our preconceptions about something were flawed? Anton Ego discarded his ego when he proclaimed to the world about the sheer brilliance of the genius behind Gusteau's success.

This is not a proclamation that it is not OK to criticize. What I am trying to point out is that while it is in good fun to criticize something, we should keep in mind to formally and deliberately praise something that is brilliant when we face it. It is not enough to admit it to ourselves in the privacy of our own room. The importance of giving the appropriate credit where it is due is highly underrated. May all your successes be given their true recognition.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Such a cliched saying that is... well... cliched and perhaps outdated. Or is it? We hate people who act like pots that label kettles black, especially when it sounds as if it could be a racist comment. In fact, we love to hate people who are self-righteous and act like they are in the "right" while everything and everyone against them is in the "wrong".

This issue attempts to understand the behavior that allows us to poison our surroundings. Why do we like to label kettles black?

I propose that the only reason is simply our ego and self-righteousness. The simple belief that everything we do and believe in is the right thing to do, and everything to the contrary is inferior. Because of that, when someone acts in a particular way that does not coincide with our standards of convention, we tend to develop a feeling of dissent towards that person, especially when we are unable to understand that person's motives.

Let us consider some simple examples. First, any driver in KL should know about the typical rudeness of KL drivers who have blatant disregard for the safety of other drivers as well as their own. They switch lanes back and forth on the highway without using their indicators in order to get to their destinations a few paltry minutes faster that they normally would. They weave in and out, pretending to be F1 drivers, not realizing that F1 drivers are not even supposed to weave, while gaining in time whatever they lose in petrol in the process of breaking and accelerating sharply. What's worse about these drivers is that, they feel it is OK when they cut into your lanes, but when you try to cut into their lanes, they speed up so that you have insufficient space to cut into their lane. The nerve of a pot.

The second example is somewhat longer. In the beginning, what started out as an affair for Jesse and Jenny appeared to be doomed when Jesse could not find the "heart" to dump his then girlfriend, Diana. Of course, Jesse and Jenny had been going out behind Diana's back and it was also inevitable that Jesse and Diana's relationship turned sour quickly. Despite the loss of feelings between them, Jesse and Diana did not break up. It was obvious that Diana still had strong feelings for Jesse while Jesse tried to be the noble one by insisting on providing a soft landing for Diana. While all this is happening, Jenny is fully aware of what is going on and what started out as discomfort gradually grew into anger, which was subsequently taken out on Jesse. In a fit, Jenny threw down an ultimatum, making Jesse choose Diana or herself, which scared Jesse away into giving Diana another shot at their relationship.

Jenny felt betrayed and swore never to associate herself with Jesse ever again. After all, what kind of girl would pine for a two-timer like Jesse. As time grew by, Jenny drifted further away from Jesse, and continued to seek attention from other suitors. Meanwhile, Jesse is suffering from disillusion after trying to save a relationship that was doomed to fail. Seeing Jenny being pursued by other suitors, Jesse started to feel insecure and in a rash decision, decided to discard his clingy girlfriend to return to Jenny's side.

Jenny was more than pleased to have the security of Jesse's arms again as this time, Diana was no longer in the way, or so she thought. However, in his rashness, and perhaps due to his lack of certain male genitalia, he did not mention the true reason for breaking up with Diana, which consequently gave Diana false hope of getting back together with Jesse. While he tried to enjoy whatever relationship he was rebuilding with Jenny, he kept the safety net up for Diana, or so he says, but it was probably a safety net that he prepared for himself as well, as he knew that Jenny had complete possession of his testicles. After all, he had to promise her something, in order to return to her side.

So, Diana, playing the role of the perfectly clingy girlfriend, pursued the breadcrumb trail provided by Jesse. This then boiled the wrath of Jenny once again, but instead of being angry at Jesse, Jenny was furious at Diana's behavior of not leaving them alone. To Jenny, Jesse was now hers and Diana had no claim to Jesse. The obvious question in Jenny's mind was, "How do you expect to salvage a relationship with a guy who has feelings for another girl? Even if he were to leave that girl to return to you, could you trust him again?" Jenny went on for months, bashing on about the naivete of little Diana, who just couldn't let go.

But the question that pops out in this case is, what happened when Jenny swore never to associate herself with Jesse again? Jesse had left Jenny to be with Diana. Anyone could simply ask the same question to Jenny: "How do you expect to salvage a relationship with a guy who has feelings for another girl? Even if he were to leave that girl to return to you, could you trust him again?"

So of course, if such a question were posed to Jenny, I am most certain that she could give 1001 reasons why her situation was different and how she deserves to be treated "fairly". To return to the purpose of today's issue, we ask again, why do pots call kettles black?

These examples show the power of the mind. Our minds are able to justify every single one of our actions, despite previously condemning someone else for a similar gesture. Our ego serves as a self-reassurance mechanism to reinforce the idea that we are more right than others. Everyone, whether we express it or not, will feel threatened and defensive upon instinct if our ideas or beliefs are attacked. Only invertebrates would instinctively agree with a counterargument.

So this act of what appears to be hypocrisy arises from our insecurity. Our instinct calls upon our desire to be correct in order to feel superior to others. How cynical is that? Despite all that, I am not of the opinion that the pot should not be allowed to call the kettle black. As long as the pot realizes its own lack of chromo-magnificence, the pot can call the kettle and his friends and his neighbors black, and that should still be alright.